Results 3,781-3,800 of 7,278 for speaker:Dick Roche

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: I am grateful to the Senator. If one examines the 1976 Act, one will find a reference in the same section to the Minister having certain rights to overrule. That has since been dropped. The Senator is right that it is important that we protect the board's right to make decisions. If he raises the matter on Report Stage, I will address any queries he has.

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: The Senator will not be surprised that I believe the amendments do not add value. One thing they achieved was to keep many of my officials up over the weekend. They were saying prayers for the Senator because I said I wanted each individual case dealt with. The question is again one of language usage. The inclusion of the words "for permission" in every phrase could be regarded as somewhat...

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: Will the Senator stop? The amendment is a little pedantic. To add the words "where applicable" is somewhat otiose if one reads the section. The amendment could insert the phrase "where applicable" in a paragraph permitting the board "to indicate that it is considering granting permission, subject to the applicant for permission submitting revised" drawings. The amendment is unnecessary...

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: I am sorry the Senator had to stay up so late at night. I hope he did not lose too much beauty sleep. Unlike the previous amendments where he wanted to strike out words, these amendments add words. I understand the Senator's point, which is to remove the phrase "or for the purposes of an activity for which" from subsection (5) and insert a similar phrase later in the Bill, which is a little...

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: All I can say is that the Senator's charms and persuasive powers worked more easily on the less hard-hearted Minister at the time. I do not wish to crush the Senator entirely but in amendment No. 44, he proposes to delete the word "a" in the phrase "an integrated pollution control licence or a waste licence" in subsection (5). The phrase is grammatically and legally correct so I cannot accept...

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: I thank Senator Bannon for his comments on the EPA because it is easy for people to knock statutory agencies which have been established and demand that the Minister of the day interfere with their independence. I will make sure Senator Bannon's positive comments are conveyed to Dr. Kelly who, along with her colleagues, have given some considerable service to the EPA. While I do not always...

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: I share the Senator's passion for maximum consultation with local communities through their elected representatives. As I have outlined, and as the House welcomed, the Bill is noteworthy in that it provides a specific requirement for such consultation to take place. It provides very specifically that the views of councillors must be submitted in a separate document and not incorporated as an...

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: Any measure that would strengthen democracy would be welcome to me but I do not want to go further on this matter than I have gone. The Bill is unique and has been recognised as such by the various local authority representatives and council groups. The Association of County and City Councils, LAMA and the AMAI have all welcomed it to some degree. There is no great point in pushing the matter...

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: They say that hope springs eternal and that water will finally wear through even the hardest rock. While Senators were voting, I was discussing the words "situate" and "situated", and I discovered they are used interchangeably in other legislation. So I am prepared to accept the Senator's amendment, because he has been so good in pressing so many textual amendments, and it would not do any...

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: I thank the Senator for proposing the amendment, which refers to an important new power that has been given to the board to attach a condition to a permission providing for community gain. This condition may take the form of provision of financing in whole or in part of a facility or service for the community hosting the proposed development. I recall Senator Bannon on another occasion making...

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: It does. I understand the sentiment behind the Senator's proposition to delete the proportionality clause. I gave the amendment substantial consideration but I cannot accept it. I will explain my reason because the Senator deserves an explanation. A case arose a number of years ago where a council sought contributions which were disproportionate and the case was referred to An Bord Pleanála....

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: I accept that the Senator would like to use more commonplace, easily understood language in the Bill but, for the reasons I have outlined, tortuous language is sometimes necessary. I have mentioned already the reference to the EPA, and the language in the Bill is, if anything, more in keeping with common parlance. Amendment No. 11 proposes the deletion of lines 43 to 45, which include a...

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: I have no problem dealing with them separately but I will give the same general response.

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: Again, I commend Senator Bannon on his punctilious observations, particularly on punctuation points. Fowler could not have done better. The 45 amendments tabled by Senator Bannon are of a minor technical nature and are to do with drafting style. Many of these issues have been discussed over the years, but I do not think it would be wise to amend a Bill that is as complex as this one simply on...

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: The amendments I propose to this section involve textual corrections. They have no impact on the substance of the Bill but are necessary to correct some errors which have been detected since the Bill was published and circulated. I ask the House to accept this amendment which is purely technical in nature.

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: I thank Senator Bannon for tabling these amendments. I will not accept amendments for the reason to which I referred, although the Senator's point about the submission of haphazard applications was well made. However, this is not the appropriate Bill in which to express that point because one anticipates that anything that comes under this Bill of that magnitude would not involve "back of the...

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: When the Senator suggested we should take this point aside and examine it, I was interested, but there is not a cogent argument for doing what the Senator proposes. If we were to insert the word "either" in this subsection, we would have to redraft the text elsewhere in this section and insert another word "either", which would not add greatly to the text. If one includes the word "either"...

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: It is not necessary to insert the word "either" in this section of the Bill. If the word is omitted, any decision of the board to "refuse to deal with any application made to it under this section" will be permitted if the board "considers that the application for permission or the environmental impact statement is inadequate or incomplete". If one includes the word "either" in that...

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: That we are talking about websites in the context of legislation is a sign that we have come a long way. The amendments before the House seek the specific inclusion in the Bill of a provision that would require the publication in a newspaper of the name of a website on which an environmental impact assessment can be downloaded or viewed free of charge. I agree with Senator McCarthy that it is...

Seanad: Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006: Committee Stage. (3 May 2006)

Dick Roche: Again I thank Senator Bannon. This is really a stylistic issue. He is proposing in the main here to remove the words "proposed development". If one goes back to the spoken language the words "proposed development" would not be used time and again in different sections which are clearly related. We are not talking about the spoken language, however, but a legal text and the advice is to leave...